Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:33 pm

Good to know. I love the format though and wouldn't mind crayoning some changes. Found an unofficial errata thread though I don't know how much they missed: http://community.wizards.com/content/fo ... ic/3402006

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:39 am

A quick google search brought up nothing. Pathfinder rules questions:

Can you bull rush someone off a mount? Can you use grappling to yank someone off a mount?

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:29 pm

There was a thread about this in the paizo forums but no devs chimed in (google dismounting a mounted opponent paizo). A thread on Gitp suggested tripping.

d20srd wrote:You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount.

Can't find that on the pfsrd, but it should carry over I think.

I'm guessing if someone is moved off their mounted area (e.g. bullrush, drag, reposition, whatever,) it should do it as you can target mounted characters using normal attacks so they should be vulnerable to these, but I can't find anything official.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:19 pm

I was thinking recently about how to make a tough but not hardy race (inspired by the new dwarves post in "interesting cultures").

What are the pitfalls of a pair of traits, -6 constitution and hardness = (constitution / 2)?

Not that those are necessarily the best numbers, but I think they illustrate the approach.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:34 pm

It might be alright to just let them take half damage from a bunch of sources but a hit to con, but honestly it'd probably be best to design a new system that fits in to.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:58 am

@fectin

I've noted this for people in a few places, so you're not the first, but the way to note a squishy victim in a hard shell in D&D is to give them a higher AC. Classic Zombies model better in D&D if you give them AC 20+ and just 2 hit points, so superheroes can chew them up with constant "brain shots" and ordinary people flail away uselessly forever.

Hardness is just nonsense. It's a tool for making monsters almost immune to everything that's not magic-silver or whatever, and then they gave it to doors and similar objects like Barbarians because ... I don't know either.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:13 am

tussock wrote:doors and similar objects like Barbarians

Hah!

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:16 pm

I wanted them to be hardened against environmental and area damage though, which is why I picked hardness instead of DR/-. I also wanted them to be able to completely shrug off minor attacks, but still have a reason to be paranoid.

So, generally good advice, but in this specific case I meant the one I said.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:01 am

Oh, right. I've got hardness and DR/- conceptually linked in my head, had to tjeck a few times to sort that out. Apparently my objects have a been a bit easy to vape with energy spells for quite some time, though it makes little difference with the tiny numbers involved.

Functionally no different to DR/- with ER for everything then. Which is what you should call it for consistency, your characters not actually being objects. Like Golems do.

So ... math-wise you make characters per-level weaker and per-attack stronger. Given that characters face no more attacks at high level than they do at low level (insignificant vs level gain), you've made a thing that everyone who takes it gets comparatively weaker as they advance.

It's, like you're a 3.0 fiend, basically. Enough Con and it doesn't matter, otherwise splat.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:28 am

Honestly, I think some creatures should have hardness. Golems and Animated Objects definitely, and I don't think it'd be bad for dwarves to just straight up have hardness. They're earth-energy heavy humanoids, they're proverbially tough as rock, they have hardness.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:20 am

The game's not set up to support it. Damage per attack doesn't scale by level, DR doesn't scale with level, they don't scale with each other. Flavouring monsters as "hard like a wall" is not a good reason to transfer over the crappy mechanics for swording through walls.

The actual mechanics for Golems are bad enough in 3e. GURPS4 deals with it all well enough, but it's got five steps for resolving every attack and you probably don't want that.

I go back to my original point. Hard things in D&D should just have a high AC and appropriate energy resists and immunities. It's the best option the system's got.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:34 am

Anyone have good rules for the effects of drinking alcohol in D&D? Just to keep the game going, we did 1 Fort save/hour, -1 Int/Wis/Cha per failed save, but that's because I didn't have anything to refer to.

darkmaster · Post by **darkmaster** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:36 am

That sounds as good a way as any, but don't forget becoming sickened, and dazed the day after.

pragma · Post by **pragma** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:38 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Anyone have good rules for the effects of drinking alcohol in D&D?

Stolen from a GM I respect: "When drinking you are allowed to take a penalty of -1 to -3 (player's choice) to your DEX, WIS and INT. If you take -3, you're going to throw up tomorrow unless you're a dwarf. If you're trying to keep up with someone, you take whatever modifier they decide to take."

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:05 am

Eh, it worked. Told us how much of a penalty the bard got on a bluff check.

Another question- I raised the idea of playing a tabletop Elder Scrolls/Skyrim game with my group tonight. Anyone know of a system for that that they approve of?

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:37 am

tussock wrote:I go back to my original point. Hard things in D&D should just have a high AC and appropriate energy resists and immunities. It's the best option the system's got.

That results in a wall that anyone can take down with any weapon that can deal lethal damage given enough time. Sorry, but you just can't punch through a steel wall with a toothpick and 10 Str.

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:11 am

Axebird wrote:
tussock wrote:I go back to my original point. Hard things in D&D should just have a high AC and appropriate energy resists and immunities. It's the best option the system's got.
That results in a wall that anyone can take down with any weapon that can deal lethal damage given enough time. Sorry, but you just can't punch through a steel wall with a toothpick and 10 Str.

REALISMZ

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:48 pm

For a HeartBreaker, I'd love to have an acronym for 'Total Character Level' that is different from 'Caster Level'.

It would be nice if 'Character Level' and 'Caster Level' could be used, because those are terms that people are familar with, but the fact that they would abbreviate the same is a problem. And I'm not very fond of 'TCL'.

So, if you had 3.x to design over again, what terminology would you use for 'character level' and 'caster level'. Would you change the name of 'class'? Or 'caster'?

Suggestions welcome.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:55 pm

If I had to do 3e over again, I damn sure wouldn't have caster level at all. Level based effects of spells would just be based on character level. Duh.

-Username17

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:40 pm

That's actually a really good point...

That said, having 20 levels of spells (as opposed to 9) feels quite a bit harder... In my Heart breaker I have 12 levels for classes and 7 spell levels...

So would you further divide the spells? If you wanted to slow down access to more powerful spells, how would you do it? I find giving too many abilities at each level can be confusing and spreading out the acquisition is helpful...

So what's your recommendation around that?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:42 pm

Just have there be level 1 spells, level 3 spells, level 5 spells, etc. etc. It's not a huge deal if you just skip the even-numbered levels.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:45 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:That's actually a really good point...

That said, having 20 levels of spells (as opposed to 9) feels quite a bit harder... In my Heart breaker I have 12 levels for classes and 7 spell levels...

So would you further divide the spells? If you wanted to slow down access to more powerful spells, how would you do it? I find giving too many abilities at each level can be confusing and spreading out the acquisition is helpful...

So what's your recommendation around that?

You don't need to have 20 levels of spells. Spells known/Spells per day can still come from each Caster class' table.

Axebird · Post by **Axebird** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:16 pm

zugschef wrote:REALISMZ

I'm not really into realism at the expense of other aspects of the game, but some things just get a bit silly. I'm fine with an exceptional character with high strength or some other effect being able to penetrate a steel wall with a toothpick. But not a commoner.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:37 pm

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:02 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:That's actually a really good point...

That said, having 20 levels of spells (as opposed to 9) feels quite a bit harder... In my Heart breaker I have 12 levels for classes and 7 spell levels...

So would you further divide the spells? If you wanted to slow down access to more powerful spells, how would you do it? I find giving too many abilities at each level can be confusing and spreading out the acquisition is helpful...

So what's your recommendation around that?

You seem to be mixing up caster level and spell level. That being said, there is no reason for spell level to be different from class level. You don't need to hand out a new set of spells every level (though you can if you want), but there is exactly zero reason to call the fireball that a wizard can learn at fifth level anything other than a 'fifth level spell.'

-Username17